First, I doubt that "most good programmers" start at age 12. And kids who are programming at age 12 are almost certainly on the very high end of the intellectual bell curve (who were also lucky enough to have the parental resources to explore their interests). Throwing a microcontroller kit to your average 12 year old won't get you very far.
actually problem decomposition and rote tool understanding is 'programming'
Knowing how to 'use' the tools of algebra to solve problems is programming.
Knowing how music works (what is harmonic, discordant, rhythmic ,etc) and 'making music 's programming.
The key is getting from 'knowing the tool' to 'knowing how to use the tools to solve problems' (algorithms) and getting them excited that they can 'model' solutions based on their knowledge... and the more they know... the more they can solve, and the more they can solve, the more they can know.
Early exposure to programming and business concepts are key to getting kids interested in these subjects. I'd like to see more businesses VOLUNTARILY sponsoring programs that expose kids to real-world examples and personalities who can dynamically demonstrate a path for kids to discover and follow into the tech sector. What kids learn early in their lives is so important that it may help them decide they can actually do something to improve their lives.
First, I doubt that "most good programmers" start at age 12. And kids who are programming at age 12 are almost certainly on the very high end of the intellectual bell curve (who were also lucky enough to have the parental resources to explore their interests). Throwing a microcontroller kit to your average 12 year old won't get you very far.
Rubbish - I started programming at 9 years old, and that was 32 years ago. The earlier the better. Oh, and we were piss poor, but I agreed with my dad to forsake toys and sweets for a year, just to have a computer (a 16k Atari 400).
Though I will say, there are a few high ranking Senior Software Engineers at Apple that aren't white & male. How do they progress into the even higher ranks? That's a mystery I've tried to figure out even if you are white & male. Usually means climbing the corporate ladder by throwing people under the bus and taking credit for things you didn't do.
So what Jackson really wants is non-whites to be more deceitful. /s
No, what Jackson wants is for people to be given a job regardless of their abilities compared to other applicants based solely upon the color of their skin. It is called racism, but it is okay in his view since the color isn't "white" (I always hated that term people don't have white skin.)
Is there a problem? Damn straight there is, but as others have said, trying to address the issue at this level is beyond stupid, and quite frankly calls into question Jackson real motivation, which I have always found circumspect.
I agree that firms should hire the best people for the job without regard to race, age, sex etc.
However, I also think that there are real inequities in society that need to be addressed, and that in far too many cases people who say what you said (and what I agree with) pretend those inequities don't exist or are opposed to every single idea for addressing them.
So I think that if one rejects one idea, then there is some burden on the rejector to suggest an alternative.
The alternative I suggest is to focus on economic inequality rather than racial/gender/etc inequality, and use mildly redistributionist policies to address those inequities. By "mildly redistributionist" I mean taxing the rich at a higher marginal rate than the middle class and poor, and using that money to support things like the earned income tax credit and education and health care for the poor. In other words, I support the types of policies that the mainstream Democratic party supports, and that the Republican party is constantly trying to eliminate.
Exactly - there's definitely a problem, but the tough part is figuring out where that problem comes from. Is it the hiring process (i.e, people of different races being passed over for some reason)? Is it the applications (people of different races aren't applying for some reason)? Is it before that, in the education system? Or before that?
In my opinion it's an issue at the most basic level with quality of life, as you said. We see the same lack of diversity at college / university level, not just with businesses - so it can't be to do with the companies themselves. The most obvious factor that is likely to be influencing this is economic equality or lack thereof.
You raise interesting points. I think some of it has to do with the various potential stall points for someone who is not a white male being in education, mentorship, hiring processes, etc as you point out. Basically any constraint through that process yields less available candidates. Take that further and realize that for someone to be the top of their respective fields to make it to an SVP/CXO position at Apple now, you soon realize that you are talking about people that made themselves 20 years ago. Look at the new CFO as an example.
Luca Maestri: over 25 years of experience
CFO of Xerox
CFO Nokia Siemens Networks
CFO European Operations General Motors.
Bachelor's in economics: Luiss University in Rome in 1988
Master's of science: Boston University in 1991
Board member of The Principal Financial Group.
How many minorities were making it through Bachelor's and Master's programs at this time? We are talking about people who were born in the late 1960's. You can imagine the challenges facing minorities at this time.
My point here is that "if" we are finally to a point where the best person for the job gets it... Given that the pool of people available now are still limited from past issues, we will not see a significant increase in diversity for these roles until a full generation can go through the whole cycle of education and work experience unencumbered.
As a side note, I work in tech and we have a pretty diverse workforce. However, the people will real ambition trying to get to upper management are almost all white and mostly male. This is not the people that have made it, but the people that are hell bent on getting there and working hard to make it happen. Just seems like everyone else is working hard to make a life and going for a grade increase or salary bump, but not the strong push upwards into director/VP/SVP territory.
The reason there aren't many blacks in tech is because black families and black kids don't embrace an education and path that naturally leads to the tech industry. You know, things like math, science, business, etc.
Blacks, as a general group, seem to have no problem excelling in sports and music without any hand-outs or crying about racial imbalance. Why? Because those areas are apparently important to much of the black community, and that's where their energy goes.
If you want the same results in tech, then the black community should look inward, and start changing its own priorities at the family level. That will lead to more blacks in tech, and eventually the ones that rise highest as managers will make it into boardrooms. That's the right way towards progress for blacks. It's called "earning it", and it leads to strong skills, and both self-respect and respect from peers.
The wrong way is to avoid uncomfortable dialogs with your own community, Jesse, and then whine about "discrimination" and demand that companies give less qualified people free hand-outs based on race. That only makes black people weaker by letting them skip a more rigorous path towards advancement, and gives peers a very good reason to see their social-engineered black colleagues as lightweights. Which in turn creates more of a barrier between races, instead of breaking barriers down.
First, I doubt that "most good programmers" start at age 12. And kids who are programming at age 12 are almost certainly on the very high end of the intellectual bell curve (who were also lucky enough to have the parental resources to explore their interests). Throwing a microcontroller kit to your average 12 year old won't get you very far.
Are you sure about that? The only hurdles I face with education today are with learning new languages. This includes both human and programming languages. I spend a couple hours every day trying to learn to program. I get the logic of programming and can do C reasonably well but the complex syntax of Objective C and iOS/Mac APIs are a major stumbling block for me. I've come to the conclusion that like any language the older you are the harder programming becomes if you have no early foundation. I watch YouTube videos almost daily that has some preteen who's voice hasn't yet cracked explaining with ease how to code something that has me completely stumped. There appears to be neurobiological origins of language and by around 5-8yo something occurs in the Wernicke's area of the brain that starts to make the absorption of a language more difficult.
No but if you have 3 white people and 3 black people with similar experience and hire the 3 whites, that is racist.
What needs to be proven now is that that level of talent is out there. According to a previous poster a black engineer with software experience can, in fact, name his price because the companies are looking to make their diversity quotas. So the problem isn’t, and can’t be, corporate America’s to solve - it has to be the education system or African American attitudes, or both.
Word to the wise, somewhere between 60 and 100K immigrants are pouring into Silicon Valley, some are white, many aren’t. None are American, and so therefore none have the same culture as American whites, most are from poorer countries than America ( or black America), very few speak English as a first language, and all this adds to a disadvantage relative to people born in the US.
First, I doubt that "most good programmers" start at age 12. And kids who are programming at age 12 are almost certainly on the very high end of the intellectual bell curve (who were also lucky enough to have the parental resources to explore their interests). Throwing a microcontroller kit to your average 12 year old won't get you very far.
Almost all the programmers I have met that I would hire with my own money (as opposed to my employer's money) started very early.
I look at the executive ranks at Apple and see a bunch of talented people. Jesse Jackson sees a bunch of white men. Who's viewpoint seems more racist? And as bvgk mentioned, where's the racial equality in the NFL or NBA? Or should we not concern ourselves with that inequality, or worse, let a bunch of mediocre white guys play just to "even things out"? Not everyone gets a trophy folks. If we want to talk about equality, let's talk about it fairly and for everyone, not just cherry pick the situations that favor our opinionated agenda.
people have to worry less about equality or fairness (everyone's a winner), and opt to fighting for justice.
as i pointed out bvgk's comment is stupid in that shows that people of color can perform at a level of excellence sought by the sporting public, if given a fair shake.
Jesse isn't arguing for a headcount, Jesse is arguing that it's a biased selection process, and a biased development process. and Bias based purely (or indirectly inferring racial differences) on the color or creed of someone is wrong.
Jesse's problem [in this forum] is that business is all about getting not the best/perfect/global-maxima, but the most effective solution to a simple problem: making as much money as possible for the least amount of effort. That's the white male capitalist way.
Apple is a particularly inviting target as it's a) very white male led, b) espouses a global view on it's impact on society, and c) makes Money like no one else. If Apple's conscious is willing to appease Greenpeace for whales and dolphins and cute little animals, Apple can and should do at least the minimum necessary (at least give Jesse a look at the books on hiring practices within Apple) to address the fact that Apple does want the best person for the job regardless of race/creed/gender/politics/value-system, and the job is X and the corporate values are Y, and here were the candidates, and where they fell short.
Jesse's problem [in this forum] is that business is all about getting not the best/perfect/global-maxima, but the most effective solution to a simple problem: making as much money as possible for the least amount of effort. That's the white male capitalist way.
Are you saying the maximizing profits is a white male capitalist way or are you saying that's what Jackson thinks?
Either way, I'd say that's an aspect of humanity, not of any race, nation or culture.
I agree that firms should hire the best people for the job without regard to race, age, sex etc.
However, I also think that there are real inequities in society that need to be addressed, and that in far too many cases people who say what you said (and what I agree with) pretend those inequities don't exist or are opposed to every single idea for addressing them.
So I think that if one rejects one idea, then there is some burden on the rejector to suggest an alternative.
The alternative I suggest is to focus on economic inequality rather than racial/gender/etc inequality, and use mildly redistributionist policies to address those inequities. By "mildly redistributionist" I mean taxing the rich at a higher marginal rate than the middle class and poor, and using that money to support things like the earned income tax credit and education and health care for the poor. In other words, I support the types of policies that the mainstream Democratic party supports, and that the Republican party is constantly trying to eliminate.
I agree with Blastdoor, it is not enough to say hire the most qualified people, regardless of color. In a capitalist system, the winner takes all, and those with economic and social advantage become the winners. The system is self-perpetuating. If you want an equal and equitable society, not everyone does, then you have to do something about it. Life isn't fair for many many people, not just for highly educated "white" people who want to work for a high tech company like Apple.
Are you sure about that? The only hurdles I face with education today are with learning new languages. This includes both human and programming languages. I spend a couple hours every day trying to learn to program. I get the logic of programming and can do C reasonably well but the complex syntax of Objective C and iOS/Mac APIs are a major stumbling block for me. I've come to the conclusion that like any language the older you are the harder programming becomes if you have no early foundation. I watch YouTube videos almost daily that has some preteen who's voice hasn't yet cracked explaining with ease how to code something that has me completely stumped. There appears to be neurobiological origins of language and by around 5-8yo something occurs in the Wernicke's area of the brain that starts to make the absorption of a language more difficult.
Oh, man. We are in the same boat in that respect. I had Pascal programming in high school but that has done little for me in my "advanced years". LOL! Programming isn't just learning the technical, it is creatively applying vague, ethereal concepts in an efficient way. Very, very difficult if one is not programming daily.
he didn't... he said 'happily racist' if all white men were on the board. Didn't say how they got there, didn't say why, no validation of the process... just said he'd be happily called that if that were the result. I try not to read much into what people say, but I also learned that their first direct thought is the most accurate one.
You seem to deliberately twisting things to support your wrongful accusation or maybe it's just your inability to comprehend what he wrote.
Let me repost what Talles Skil said:
"I’d rather have all white men who can do the best job than “one of each flavor” who can’t.
If that makes me racist, I’m happily so."
Where did he say, "'happily racist' if all white men were on the board?" other than in your mind? And to answer your question he DID validate how they got their by clearly saying, "who can do the best job" regardless of how or why. And who wouldn't be happy with the result if said company only hired the best and brightest, without regards to race? The poster was just saying that if those people just happen to be white (clearly NOT his wishes) then he would prefer it to an inferior hire who happens to be a person of color. And, if the best person for the job happens to be a person of color, he'd prefer that to a white person who can't do the best job. It's about qualification not color. Hiring a person based purely on race is racist, even if that person happens to be black. Thus, Jessie Jackson is promoting racism. The same Jessie Jackson, whom I might add, called New York "Hymietown" a blatant, racist attack on Jews.
BTW, before it's mentioned to diminish my post, sorry for the typos and what appears to be poor grammar in my above post, i.e. "their instead of "there."
Well I think we should have a WET awards and TV station. I mean it's only fair right?
This wins the "Dumb and Ignorant" comment award of the day. You do realize that 95% of TV is already WET? That is why BET exists. That is why Latino stations exists. That is why Gay TV stations exists. Etc etc.
I agree with Blastdoor, it is not enough to say hire the most qualified people, regardless of color. In a capitalist system, the winner takes all, and those with economic and social advantage become the winners. The system is self-perpetuating. If you want an equal and equitable society, not everyone does, then you have to do something about it. Life isn't fair for many many people, not just for highly educated "white" people who want to work for a high tech company like Apple.
Why isn't enough that the most qualified people get a job? You also seem to imply that capitalism inherently racist, which I don't get.
Oh, man. We are in the same boat in that respect. I had Pascal programming in high school but that has done little for me in my "advanced years". LOL! Programming isn't just learning the technical, it is creatively applying vague, ethereal concepts in an efficient way. Very, very difficult if one is not programming daily.
I never used a computer until several years outside of HS. In some ways my growth was stunted. I'm also trying to learn to Spanish at a local college. Last year I spent about 40 hours a week studying, attended a Spanish speaking meet up group to better my ear, watched TV shows and movies in Spanish, and even had a private tutor. I barely got a C in the class. In college I took 18 or more credit hours and never had to put in close to that much time as I did for that one class. I'm retaking the class to better my foundation before moving to Spanish 2. It's going better but I'm certainly not acing the class.
This is my white whale. I'll either get it or... morir en el intento …or… while (death <= 1) { trying; };
Comments
First, I doubt that "most good programmers" start at age 12. And kids who are programming at age 12 are almost certainly on the very high end of the intellectual bell curve (who were also lucky enough to have the parental resources to explore their interests). Throwing a microcontroller kit to your average 12 year old won't get you very far.
actually problem decomposition and rote tool understanding is 'programming'
Knowing how to 'use' the tools of algebra to solve problems is programming.
Knowing how music works (what is harmonic, discordant, rhythmic ,etc) and 'making music 's programming.
The key is getting from 'knowing the tool' to 'knowing how to use the tools to solve problems' (algorithms) and getting them excited that they can 'model' solutions based on their knowledge... and the more they know... the more they can solve, and the more they can solve, the more they can know.
First, I doubt that "most good programmers" start at age 12. And kids who are programming at age 12 are almost certainly on the very high end of the intellectual bell curve (who were also lucky enough to have the parental resources to explore their interests). Throwing a microcontroller kit to your average 12 year old won't get you very far.
Rubbish - I started programming at 9 years old, and that was 32 years ago. The earlier the better. Oh, and we were piss poor, but I agreed with my dad to forsake toys and sweets for a year, just to have a computer (a 16k Atari 400).
Completely agree with this.
Though I will say, there are a few high ranking Senior Software Engineers at Apple that aren't white & male. How do they progress into the even higher ranks? That's a mystery I've tried to figure out even if you are white & male. Usually means climbing the corporate ladder by throwing people under the bus and taking credit for things you didn't do.
So what Jackson really wants is non-whites to be more deceitful. /s
No, what Jackson wants is for people to be given a job regardless of their abilities compared to other applicants based solely upon the color of their skin. It is called racism, but it is okay in his view since the color isn't "white" (I always hated that term people don't have white skin.)
Is there a problem? Damn straight there is, but as others have said, trying to address the issue at this level is beyond stupid, and quite frankly calls into question Jackson real motivation, which I have always found circumspect.
I agree that firms should hire the best people for the job without regard to race, age, sex etc.
However, I also think that there are real inequities in society that need to be addressed, and that in far too many cases people who say what you said (and what I agree with) pretend those inequities don't exist or are opposed to every single idea for addressing them.
So I think that if one rejects one idea, then there is some burden on the rejector to suggest an alternative.
The alternative I suggest is to focus on economic inequality rather than racial/gender/etc inequality, and use mildly redistributionist policies to address those inequities. By "mildly redistributionist" I mean taxing the rich at a higher marginal rate than the middle class and poor, and using that money to support things like the earned income tax credit and education and health care for the poor. In other words, I support the types of policies that the mainstream Democratic party supports, and that the Republican party is constantly trying to eliminate.
Exactly - there's definitely a problem, but the tough part is figuring out where that problem comes from. Is it the hiring process (i.e, people of different races being passed over for some reason)? Is it the applications (people of different races aren't applying for some reason)? Is it before that, in the education system? Or before that?
In my opinion it's an issue at the most basic level with quality of life, as you said. We see the same lack of diversity at college / university level, not just with businesses - so it can't be to do with the companies themselves. The most obvious factor that is likely to be influencing this is economic equality or lack thereof.
You raise interesting points. I think some of it has to do with the various potential stall points for someone who is not a white male being in education, mentorship, hiring processes, etc as you point out. Basically any constraint through that process yields less available candidates. Take that further and realize that for someone to be the top of their respective fields to make it to an SVP/CXO position at Apple now, you soon realize that you are talking about people that made themselves 20 years ago. Look at the new CFO as an example.
Luca Maestri: over 25 years of experience
CFO of Xerox
CFO Nokia Siemens Networks
CFO European Operations General Motors.
Bachelor's in economics: Luiss University in Rome in 1988
Master's of science: Boston University in 1991
Board member of The Principal Financial Group.
How many minorities were making it through Bachelor's and Master's programs at this time? We are talking about people who were born in the late 1960's. You can imagine the challenges facing minorities at this time.
My point here is that "if" we are finally to a point where the best person for the job gets it... Given that the pool of people available now are still limited from past issues, we will not see a significant increase in diversity for these roles until a full generation can go through the whole cycle of education and work experience unencumbered.
As a side note, I work in tech and we have a pretty diverse workforce. However, the people will real ambition trying to get to upper management are almost all white and mostly male. This is not the people that have made it, but the people that are hell bent on getting there and working hard to make it happen. Just seems like everyone else is working hard to make a life and going for a grade increase or salary bump, but not the strong push upwards into director/VP/SVP territory.
LET'S BE FRANK, JESSE.
The reason there aren't many blacks in tech is because black families and black kids don't embrace an education and path that naturally leads to the tech industry. You know, things like math, science, business, etc.
Blacks, as a general group, seem to have no problem excelling in sports and music without any hand-outs or crying about racial imbalance. Why? Because those areas are apparently important to much of the black community, and that's where their energy goes.
If you want the same results in tech, then the black community should look inward, and start changing its own priorities at the family level. That will lead to more blacks in tech, and eventually the ones that rise highest as managers will make it into boardrooms. That's the right way towards progress for blacks. It's called "earning it", and it leads to strong skills, and both self-respect and respect from peers.
The wrong way is to avoid uncomfortable dialogs with your own community, Jesse, and then whine about "discrimination" and demand that companies give less qualified people free hand-outs based on race. That only makes black people weaker by letting them skip a more rigorous path towards advancement, and gives peers a very good reason to see their social-engineered black colleagues as lightweights. Which in turn creates more of a barrier between races, instead of breaking barriers down.
In other words: SHUT UP AND EARN IT, JESSE.
Are you sure about that? The only hurdles I face with education today are with learning new languages. This includes both human and programming languages. I spend a couple hours every day trying to learn to program. I get the logic of programming and can do C reasonably well but the complex syntax of Objective C and iOS/Mac APIs are a major stumbling block for me. I've come to the conclusion that like any language the older you are the harder programming becomes if you have no early foundation. I watch YouTube videos almost daily that has some preteen who's voice hasn't yet cracked explaining with ease how to code something that has me completely stumped. There appears to be neurobiological origins of language and by around 5-8yo something occurs in the Wernicke's area of the brain that starts to make the absorption of a language more difficult.
No but if you have 3 white people and 3 black people with similar experience and hire the 3 whites, that is racist.
What needs to be proven now is that that level of talent is out there. According to a previous poster a black engineer with software experience can, in fact, name his price because the companies are looking to make their diversity quotas. So the problem isn’t, and can’t be, corporate America’s to solve - it has to be the education system or African American attitudes, or both.
Word to the wise, somewhere between 60 and 100K immigrants are pouring into Silicon Valley, some are white, many aren’t. None are American, and so therefore none have the same culture as American whites, most are from poorer countries than America ( or black America), very few speak English as a first language, and all this adds to a disadvantage relative to people born in the US.
First, I doubt that "most good programmers" start at age 12. And kids who are programming at age 12 are almost certainly on the very high end of the intellectual bell curve (who were also lucky enough to have the parental resources to explore their interests). Throwing a microcontroller kit to your average 12 year old won't get you very far.
Almost all the programmers I have met that I would hire with my own money (as opposed to my employer's money) started very early.
How can anyone imply that this industry is 'racist'?!
It likely employs proportionately more Indians and Chinese than any other major industry in the US.
I look at the executive ranks at Apple and see a bunch of talented people. Jesse Jackson sees a bunch of white men. Who's viewpoint seems more racist? And as bvgk mentioned, where's the racial equality in the NFL or NBA? Or should we not concern ourselves with that inequality, or worse, let a bunch of mediocre white guys play just to "even things out"? Not everyone gets a trophy folks. If we want to talk about equality, let's talk about it fairly and for everyone, not just cherry pick the situations that favor our opinionated agenda.
people have to worry less about equality or fairness (everyone's a winner), and opt to fighting for justice.
as i pointed out bvgk's comment is stupid in that shows that people of color can perform at a level of excellence sought by the sporting public, if given a fair shake.
Jesse isn't arguing for a headcount, Jesse is arguing that it's a biased selection process, and a biased development process. and Bias based purely (or indirectly inferring racial differences) on the color or creed of someone is wrong.
Jesse's problem [in this forum] is that business is all about getting not the best/perfect/global-maxima, but the most effective solution to a simple problem: making as much money as possible for the least amount of effort. That's the white male capitalist way.
Apple is a particularly inviting target as it's a) very white male led, b) espouses a global view on it's impact on society, and c) makes Money like no one else. If Apple's conscious is willing to appease Greenpeace for whales and dolphins and cute little animals, Apple can and should do at least the minimum necessary (at least give Jesse a look at the books on hiring practices within Apple) to address the fact that Apple does want the best person for the job regardless of race/creed/gender/politics/value-system, and the job is X and the corporate values are Y, and here were the candidates, and where they fell short.
Are you saying the maximizing profits is a white male capitalist way or are you saying that's what Jackson thinks?
Either way, I'd say that's an aspect of humanity, not of any race, nation or culture.
I agree that firms should hire the best people for the job without regard to race, age, sex etc.
However, I also think that there are real inequities in society that need to be addressed, and that in far too many cases people who say what you said (and what I agree with) pretend those inequities don't exist or are opposed to every single idea for addressing them.
So I think that if one rejects one idea, then there is some burden on the rejector to suggest an alternative.
The alternative I suggest is to focus on economic inequality rather than racial/gender/etc inequality, and use mildly redistributionist policies to address those inequities. By "mildly redistributionist" I mean taxing the rich at a higher marginal rate than the middle class and poor, and using that money to support things like the earned income tax credit and education and health care for the poor. In other words, I support the types of policies that the mainstream Democratic party supports, and that the Republican party is constantly trying to eliminate.
I agree with Blastdoor, it is not enough to say hire the most qualified people, regardless of color. In a capitalist system, the winner takes all, and those with economic and social advantage become the winners. The system is self-perpetuating. If you want an equal and equitable society, not everyone does, then you have to do something about it. Life isn't fair for many many people, not just for highly educated "white" people who want to work for a high tech company like Apple.
Oh, man. We are in the same boat in that respect. I had Pascal programming in high school but that has done little for me in my "advanced years". LOL! Programming isn't just learning the technical, it is creatively applying vague, ethereal concepts in an efficient way. Very, very difficult if one is not programming daily.
In whose definition? Do you even know what that word means?
?What utter ignorance.
he didn't... he said 'happily racist' if all white men were on the board. Didn't say how they got there, didn't say why, no validation of the process... just said he'd be happily called that if that were the result. I try not to read much into what people say, but I also learned that their first direct thought is the most accurate one.
You seem to deliberately twisting things to support your wrongful accusation or maybe it's just your inability to comprehend what he wrote.
"I’d rather have all white men who can do the best job than “one of each flavor” who can’t.
If that makes me racist, I’m happily so."
Where did he say, "'happily racist' if all white men were on the board?" other than in your mind? And to answer your question he DID validate how they got their by clearly saying, "who can do the best job" regardless of how or why. And who wouldn't be happy with the result if said company only hired the best and brightest, without regards to race? The poster was just saying that if those people just happen to be white (clearly NOT his wishes) then he would prefer it to an inferior hire who happens to be a person of color. And, if the best person for the job happens to be a person of color, he'd prefer that to a white person who can't do the best job. It's about qualification not color. Hiring a person based purely on race is racist, even if that person happens to be black. Thus, Jessie Jackson is promoting racism. The same Jessie Jackson, whom I might add, called New York "Hymietown" a blatant, racist attack on Jews.
But you knew all this anyway, didn't you...
BTW, before it's mentioned to diminish my post, sorry for the typos and what appears to be poor grammar in my above post, i.e. "their instead of "there."
This wins the "Dumb and Ignorant" comment award of the day. You do realize that 95% of TV is already WET? That is why BET exists. That is why Latino stations exists. That is why Gay TV stations exists. Etc etc.
Why isn't enough that the most qualified people get a job? You also seem to imply that capitalism inherently racist, which I don't get.
I never used a computer until several years outside of HS. In some ways my growth was stunted. I'm also trying to learn to Spanish at a local college. Last year I spent about 40 hours a week studying, attended a Spanish speaking meet up group to better my ear, watched TV shows and movies in Spanish, and even had a private tutor. I barely got a C in the class. In college I took 18 or more credit hours and never had to put in close to that much time as I did for that one class. I'm retaking the class to better my foundation before moving to Spanish 2. It's going better but I'm certainly not acing the class.
This is my white whale. I'll either get it or... morir en el intento …or… while (death <= 1) { trying; };
No, given that 95% of television does NOT cater specifically to caucasians. You don’t seem to get it.
Wait… there’s gay TV? Other than The Naked Channel?